Tag Archives: chechar

Donquixote

Chechar’s Crusade

On Carolyn and Tan is Chechar’s latest effort to explain why I suck. It amounts to the fact that I don’t share his position, that Whites suck:

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

As I’ve explained before, I’m not inclined to make lengthy or frequent responses to Chechar because he mainly craves attention and doesn’t really offer any new or useful ideas. His belief that Whites suck is already the dominant belief amongst Whites, and it’s doing Whites great harm. To put it bluntly, I don’t believe Chechar offers honest criticism of Whites, much less my positions.

As I noted in my conversation with Carolyn on White pathology, many Whites go back through history searching for answers. What I find most bizarre are the ones who go back out of a desire to “prove” that the answer is not the jews. Chechar is one example of this. Another that comes to mind is Ian Jobling.

Chechar argues that I blame the jews entirely as a way of excusing Whites entirely, that I have identified attempts to excuse jews by blaming Whites (the suicide meme), therefore I must be trying to accomplish the opposite. Basically Chechar likes the suicide meme, thus he dislikes my pointing it out and arguing against it.

Chechar’s argument for White suicide is based on a tautological rationale that can hardly even be called an argument. He cites two inter-related phenomena, the history of Christianity and Spain, exactly because in his mind Whites are entirely responsible for them. Therefore, not the jews. QED.

Chechar’s just-so argument is not simply wrong, it’s wrong in an ironic and telling way. Chechar misinterprets and downplays the influence of jews on both Christianity and Spain, and jewish crypsis more generally. Briefly put, he agrees with the jewish narrative – that Christians persecuted jews, therefore Europeans are responsible for Christianity. The reasoning is based, first of all, on the false notion that jews, once “converted”, turn into Europeans. Second, it requires a willful misreading of the persecution, calling attention to the exception, the jews who were most obvious, to distract from the rule, the jews who were more or less successful in infiltrating and manipulating Christianity without much notice.

Any model of reality which is true, not to mention constructed from a point of view in favor of Whites, must account for the jews, and especially jewish crypsis – their deliberate deceptions about who they are and what they’re up to. Jewish crypsis, if nothing else, is evidence of jewish hostility toward Whites. According to the jewish narrative, Whites are to blame for it. According to Chechar the jews don’t even matter. In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools. Throughout history the jews have cultivated and exploited exactly this kind of behavior in their hosts, preaching blindness and ignorance while they condemn and cavort however they please.

In his conclusion Chechar quotes approvingly the following comment:

it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

It’s hard to see this as anything but an excuse for jewish parasitism. If White/jew relations were symbiotic there wouldn’t be anything to get emotional about. But jews and their sympathizers do get emotional, using that and other excuses to prevent and derail such discussions. From a parasite’s point of view discussions about parasitism can’t be good for the parasites. From a White point of view that’s exactly why Whites should discuss it, not shut up.

Trevor-and-the-dog

Methinks the Psychoanalyst Doth Project Too Much

In Are monocausalists paranoid?, Chechar writes:

Yesterday and today I received some emails from Tanstaafl asking me if I have Jewish blood in my veins! Apparently Tanstaafl is now trying to see a Jew under the wrong stone because he’s extremely upset about my recent posts criticizing his pet theory, “monocausalism.” However upset he may be, that is no excuse for his rudeness in his recent emails. Here there are some sentences of our email exchanges.

The post is pretty brief. The bit above is the most melodramatic portion. I haven’t seen projection like this in quite a while.

I have to admit I am disturbed, but not for the reasons Chechar thinks.

It’s clear that he’s deluded. “Monocausalism” is Chechar’s pet theory, not mine. I think I’m patient zero in this theory, and I think it has something to do with the suicide meme.

It’s clear that he’s angry. Though he’s been quite actively bad-mouthing “monocausalism” and “monocausalists” for months now, on his own blog and elsewhere, in his mind I’m the aggressor. He was finally compelled to “respond” after I had the audacity to challenge his theory when he started pimping it on tWn.

Chechar claims to be incensed by my rudeness. I don’t buy it. I think he decided quite a while ago that he didn’t like my opinions on some things. He wrote about it. And he wrote about it. The lack of interest from me made him seethe, and eventually it turned into a personal hatred.

Whatever the cause I note now his hostility. I still see nothing of substance to respond to. “Monocausalism” seems to me just another name for an old smear.

leaving-balestrand-view-of-kviknes-hotel-from-the-fjord

Fjordman Fallout

Chechar calls my attention to Unser Abschied von Fjordman (Our Departure from Fjordman) at As der Schwerter (Ace of Swords).

Mein Deutsch ist schlecht, and the Google Translate version is not much better, but the gist I get is that the efforts Chechar and I have made to engage Fjordman, part of a more general challenge to counter-jihadists to face the facts of jewish influence, has borne fruit in Germany.

The bloggers at Ace of Swords – Deep Roots, Osimandia, and Kairos (Cairo) – recently moved their blog from fjordman.wordpress.com to schwertasblog.wordpress.com, in part because visitors were sometimes confused about whether they were Fjordman, and in part because Fjordman requested it, apparently because he didn’t like that they had indeed chosen to face the facts about the jews.

While all three of these bloggers credit Fjordman with helping to awaken them, they all specifically cite the incident discussed in White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad for causing them to reevalute their opinion of the counter-jihad. They have actually made the move I was hoping Fjordman would. They have rejected the deracinated counter-jihad and embraced ethno-racial nationalism.

Their Departure from Fjordman post concludes with an unequivocal White nationalist sentiment:

Europe belongs to Europeans. Not the Jews, not Muslims, the Europeans. (And, by the way, Germany is the Germans. Not the French, not the Americans, the Germans.)

For some reason the Google Translate version of the whole page reverts to German right at the point where the comments get interesting. Translating comments piecemeal we find signs that the AoS bloggers have come very quickly up to speed. Here are some samples.

Comment 19, by Osimandia:

It is very important to recognize that it is not “the Englishman” and “French” and “Americans” are driving the adverse developments. Instead, there are Judaised British, French and Americans. And I can not even make a whole lot Judaised German, commonly referred to as “poilitisch correct”.

Among the species of this sort of people are stubborn and deluded “serious critic of Islam,” the hufescharrend wait to finally be recognized as a subspecies accepted – which in my soon to be the case.

Comment 20, by Pit:

Yep:
politically correct = Semitic correctly.

I’ve even made it clear that “politically correct” means serving certain interests, promoting. Namely: Jewish interests.

Always in our understanding, Jews are an ethnic competitors. This competitor has defined its Jewish ethnic interests to general interests: so it is now: politically correct. Indeed, but it must read: correctly Semitic. So the whole agenda that we all have equal rights, whether orignial people relative or any intruder … all the same, no matter if the people belonging to or not, is this view of Jewish ethnicity, because they want to live in other peoples as a minority, but just how much influence and rights to their ancestral people (which is possible only if the incumbent People’s delegitimized and his identity is dissolved in).

We speak of: ETHNIC CORRECT. And since there was just one: Germanic correctly.
And we should all, the entire public life, align it, what is GERMANISCH-CORRECT! For these are OUR interests.

Comment 26, by Pit:

McDonald’s position is immediately obvious to me: Jews are a rival ethnic group. They live in our white Gesellschften, but work only for their own benefit (to § 130s: “Is it good for the Jews” is the default position). From this approach follows pretty much everything else.

Comment 58, by Deep Roots:

Judaism is indeed the main enemy in this struggle for the survival of the white peoples, and to the realize this, one need only imagine what would happen if tomorrow would start all the white peoples, the Jews from their positions of power in the West remove and expel them from their countries.

Fjordman, Baron Bodissey and other long-time semitically-correct true believers may indeed be a lost cause. But here we have a reminder that there are other people – good and honest people – who are initially attracted to the counter-jihad by natural, patriotic instincts. Many are simply lurking and listening, more or less literally misguided. With help, if necessary, some of them can and will come to see the counter-jihad for what it is – a crypto-jewish movement, concerned mainly with serving jewish interests. Seeing this frees them to take the next logical and emotional step: directing their concerns toward serving the interests of their own kind rather than others.

Steuben_-_Bataille_de_Poitiers

White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad

Fjordman’s latest essay at Gates of Vienna, When Treason Becomes The Norm: Why The Proposition Nation, Not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy seems to be a move in the right direction. He’s talking about treason now, eviscerating the suicide meme he previously flirted with, though without directly disavowing it.

Fjordman intertwines one sour note with an otherwise sensible conclusion. The sensible portions were highlighted in a comment by Eileen O’Connor:

As Sam Francis reminded us, ‘every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.’

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies.

Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage.

Chechar had already responded with a spot-on comment probing Fjordman’s most glaring blind spot:

@ “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: [six culprits]

Why did you left out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy?

As to immigration in Europe, see this video where a Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:

Quote:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

/end quote

I think this blind spot cannot long endure the trajectory Fjordman is on. Here, for the first time I believe, he crosses a line, stepping away from deracinated counter-jihad and toward ethno-racial nationalism. I thought I might help him, and others in a similar quandry, with the portion of his thinking he finds “unfortunate”. I left the following comment:

Fjordman,

I like this essay, especially the portions Eileen O’Connor highlighted in her 6/10/2011 10:06 PM comment. Well done. I hope you continue along these lines.

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis.

But you do not believe this line of thinking is wrong. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that you’re having trouble reconciling this with your belief that “the nazis” are evil. The two beliefs cannot co-exist for long.

I hope you realize sooner rather than later that whatever “the nazis” did does not negate the truth or righteousness of nationalism – including the idea “that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage”. It means Germany for Germans, Norway for Norwegians, Europe for Europeans. When you can finally say this in full throat you will be denounced as a “nazi”. But by then you will understand who does this and why.

This morning I returned to the thread and found the following comment from Fjordman:

Chechar and Tanstaafl are hostile, dishonest debaters. In fact, I wouldn’t call them debaters at all, but rather spammers. They essentially post the same comment over and over again, and it’s not even an interesting or intelligent comment. Tanstaafl: We have nothing in common and I will NEVER join your “team.” You should have realized that by now. You have your own blog and there are plenty of others where you can write about this as much as you want to. You have no right to hijack this website where good people invest their time with little or no pay to create important debates.

I will request that GoV deletes Tanstaafl’s latest comment about the Nazis. Some people have mental faculties that require us to protect them from themselves. Tanstaafl clearly falls under that category. Mr. T: Your presence undermines the very purpose of this website. You have no business being here. I don’t spend countless hours of my free time reading or thinking about interesting subjects to write about for you to come here and destroy everything. Take a hike. And that goes for Chechar, too.

I’m sure Chechar will whine and complain about “censorship,” and he’s free to do so….somewhere else, for instance at his own, not terribly interesting blog which he keeps hijacking our posts here by linking to. I’m also sure he will say that I have “no right” to censor him and that doing so is “cowardice.” He’s wrong on both accounts. Yes, I do. I have every right to tell him that his presence is not wanted on my posts, just like a person has the right to decide who he wants to let into his private home. If I try to keep a tidy house and unwanted people intrude and make a mess of it, I have every right to ask them to leave. It’s not “cowardice” to ask bullies to leave, and that’s what Chechar is: a bully. He’s extremely rude and intrudes where he knows perfectly well that he is not wanted, just like the low-IQ Third World thugs he himself despises.

Discrimination is proper and necessary. Our civilization needs more of it in order to survive and prosper. I choose to discriminate against Chechar based on his rudeness, his lack of logic and his general lack of manners. I also choose to discriminate against Tanstaafl based on his lack of a moral compass and above all his lack of intelligence. There should be an IQ limit to posting here, and Tanstaafl does not qualify. He barely has an IQ much higher than that of your average Muhammedan from the Yemen, and he shares much the same obsession with looking for Jews under his bed.

Bye.

My comment was gone.

As with the puffed-up opprobrium Fjordman heaps upon “the nazis” in his essay, I see in the blind bile in this comment the anger of a man terrified with the implications of his own thoughts. We do indeed have something in common. I passed through counter-jihadism on the way to where I am now. This is why I can see so clearly why his current line of thinking, in favor of nationalism, is colliding with a long-ingrained belief in the diabolical nature of “the nazis”. The counter-jihad is a movement focused on what’s good for “the jews”. I believe Fjordman has claimed to be 100% Norwegian. Whether he considers “the jews” White or Norwegian or not, as long as he stands against the Proposition Nation, especially in preference to “a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage”, he will find himself opposed and pilloried by “the jews”, not “the nazis”.

“The jews” are their own people with their own shared heritage. They have demonstrated time and again that they cannot abide the same in anyone else. Their ancient competitors – the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, and a gaggle of latter day caliphs, kings, queens, czars, and führers – are gone, “the jews” remain.

When Fjordman strikes out at “the nazis” he strikes at an easy target. He telegraphs that he is not an enemy of “the jews”. From his previous writings, we know Fjordman thinks highly of “the jews”. Whether he holds to this position, it will not fool them. If he is sincere in his move toward a more pro-White/pro-European stand he will realize this eventually. If in the meantime it makes him feel better to imagine himself as a heroic Luke Skywalker rejecting the dirty, rotten, evil, lying Darth Vader, that’s fine by me.

Then again it could very well be that Fjordman is insincere – that for whatever reason he still really places the interests of “the jews” above everyone else, but because he has already been criticized for this he is trying to conceal it rather than reconsider it and reorder his priorities. I find this less likely, but time will tell.

- – -

Before I commented on Fjordman’s essay, Takuan Seiyo, who I’ve crossed paths with before, had already made a comment condemning Chechar. Seiyo is of a different, more fundamentally jew-first counter-jihad stripe than Fjordman. He claims to be half-Slav/half-jew, though the latter half dominates both the style and substance of his arguments. As with Lawrence Auster, Seiyo makes the occasional strong statement in favor of native Europeans and critical of “the jews”. Then he spends the balance of his efforts making it clear that this is only because he sympathizes with and excuses “the jews”. The real problem, in his mind, comes from the evil “anti-semites”, “nazis”, and other people who criticize “the jews” from a point of view less sympathetic than his own.

With this understanding I made a second comment at GoV:

Takuan Seiyo writes:

The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do, like the comrade above. Their lying about Hitler, Holocaust denial, hobnobbing with Ustashniks and Neo-nazis, obscurantism about the horrors of the Romanovs’ rule that engendered the Bolshevik Revolution (and Jewish participation therein), puts anyone who writes critically about their grand idee-fixe — Der Juden – in a radioactive chamber, and anyone who cares about truth in the camp of untruth.

The antisemites sabotage the task of saving and boosting the Peoples of Europe (and her diaspora) in two more ways. First, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Jews’ motivation in their dysfunctional behavior, they muddle the issue and make it far more difficult to mount effective countermeasures. To be brief, the most accurate – and most bitingly damaging — statement about the Jewish dysfunction was made not by Duke or MacDonald, but rather by a Jewish comedienne, Julia Gorin, and in direct negation of their and Hitler’s spurious theorizing.

I’ll believe Seiyo speaks for Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna when they say he does.

“The antisemites” are Seiyo’s grand idee-fixe, his “Der Juden”. If they would just be silent, even here on the margins of the internet, then he could finally save us all.

For those who would like to hear what actual White nationalists have to say for themselves, I recommend the following podcasts:

The Nationalist Report: Interview with David Duke, Oct 2010.

Kevin MacDonald’s speech at the first National Conference of the American Third Position Party, June 2010.

What these men say should appeal to any White person Fjordman’s essay appeals to.

This comment has also been removed. Just below where it appeared, before the response made by Fjordman quoted above, was this comment from Seiyo:

It’s either you or me. This blog will have to choose. I feel soiled by being on the same page with you. Unless you are bounced from here, I take a hike. Your response, if any, will get no response from me.

Probably without intending it, Seiyo echoes and confirms the point I was trying to get across to Fjordman. You can pick European nationalism or “the jews”. Those who choose their own kind, their nation, over “the jews” will be forced to face the fact, sooner or later, that their enemies, those who demonize and attack them most vehemently, are those who put “the jews” first.

- – -

Hesperado is another commenter on the Fjordman essay that I’ve previously crossed paths with. The comments in that post touch on Seiyo, Fjordman, and the counter-jihad as well.

Chechar has also discussed Fjordman at his blog.

stereogum-27s-anti-valentine-27s-mix

Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time

Chechar questions the non-anti-semitic limits on his White nationalism: A lightning in the middle of the night!

Lawrence “the majority should reassert itself” Auster supports the move, saying he understands Whites and jews have different, sometimes conflicting interests, and though he unequivocally favors jews he does not object to White political or cultural self-determination: An anti-anti-Semitic blogger announces that he is removing the first “anti”.

Just kidding. Larry is such a serious anti-”anti-semite” he’d never say anything remotely like that.

UPDATE 26 Feb 2010: “Tanstaafl on Auster (I)”

thou_shalt_hate_whites_and_love_jews

The First Law of Jewish Influence

As many regular visitors here probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls “The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society”. The essence of it is that “liberalism” dictates that “minorities” who behave worst must be treated best by “the majority”. It’s a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster’s terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster’s law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn’t, can’t, doesn’t, and musn’t. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a “serious anti-semite” would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted “Auster’s Law and Corollary”. I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says they feel threatened by jews is declaring themselves a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar’s post arguing against Auster’s law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don’t care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It’s important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster’s frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish (“in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment”). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks “support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue”.

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and “anti-semites”) from “our” society, but not jews. They’d like to roust “the majority” to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It’s a gambit. They know “the majority” might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. “Oh, misbehavior doesn’t include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing – misbehavior means violence!” Of course when this doesn’t fly it’s right back to the same old story. Blame “anti-semitism”. Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of “majority-minority relations” perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn’t. We can pretend the law doesn’t apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster’s dissembling. “The majority” is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by “liberalism” but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether “the majority” means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don’t get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from “whites”, which is Auster’s term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-”white”, it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-”white” regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as “suicide” would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may get warmer at times, but I don’t believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He’s more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as “the majority”, or “white gentiles”, or “white Christians”) it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Here Auster reveals that when he blames “liberalism” daily for the West’s various ills he’s really blaming White Christians. What do these Protestants feel so guilty about? Has nobody ever pointed out to them that guilt-free White-blaming jews love to conflate misguided liberal equalitarianism with consciously anti-White anti-Christian neo-liberalism?

Auster says jews know what’s going on and think the white gentile majority is the problem. It certainly describes his own view. It explains his regular commands for “the majority” to “reassert itself” by throwing off just those parts of neo-liberalism he doesn’t like. He regularly asserts that “we” are “suiciding” ourselves, as if jews are standing idly by in some ghetto watching instead of actively leading, funding, and participating in the destruction of White society while doing their utmost to protect jews.

The fact that some weak-minded Whites have been convinced to blame themselves and protect jews does not absolve the jews who are involved. What justifies treating jews as a group is how they leap as a group to the defense of the jews who are complicit. Auster got my attention because he’s one of the handful of jews who comments on these things. Even he ultimately sides with the misbehaving jews.

C’est la guerre.